In Odesa region, a father was tried for taking his minor son to cut down trees for heating the house

Law enforcement officers claimed that the man, together with his minor son, illegally cut down 51 trees in a protective forest belt, causing environmental damage exceeding UAH 68,600. In addition, the father was charged with involving a minor in criminal activity. However, the court concluded that the prosecution did not prove these circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the case materials confirmed the cutting of only 17 trees, and the amount of damage caused did not reach the threshold of significant damage required for criminal liability under Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court did not agree with the prosecution's version of cutting down 51 trees

The Shyriaivka District Court of Odesa region acquitted the father and his minor son, who were accused of illegal tree cutting in a protective forest belt, and the father was also accused of involving a minor in criminal activity.

According to the prosecution, on January 15, 2025, the man offered his minor son to help illegally harvest firewood in a protective strip near the village of Armashivka, Berezivka district, Odesa region. The investigation believed that without a special permit, they cut down 51 live trees — 42 acacias and 9 maples — causing environmental damage amounting to UAH 68,652.07.

The prosecutor also filed a civil claim on behalf of the state represented by the Petrovyrivka Village Council to jointly recover this amount from both defendants.

What the defendants explained

The father admitted that he indeed cut trees with his son for heating the house, as there was no gas supply in the village and the family could not afford to buy firewood. According to him, they cut down only 17 trees, which were recorded by the police during the first inspection of the scene. He also admitted that he offered his minor son to help with harvesting firewood.

The son confirmed these circumstances, stating that he only helped his father carry the wood to the trailer, while the father was the one who cut the trees. Both denied involvement in cutting down 51 trees.

Why the court did not accept the prosecution's version

The court noted that the accusation regarding cutting down 51 trees was actually based on the inspection protocol of the scene dated January 20, 2025. At the same time, it concluded that this evidence did not eliminate reasonable doubts about whether the defendants cut down all 51 trees themselves.

In particular, the court pointed out that the initial inspection on January 15 recorded only 17 fresh stumps. The coordinates of the scene indicated in the protocols from January 15 and 20 did not match, nor did the sizes of the stumps recorded during these inspections. Moreover, during the repeated inspection, local objects such as a dugout were found, which were not mentioned by any participant of the first inspection.

The court also noted that a man participated in the repeated inspection whose procedural status was not determined, although according to the investigator's testimony, he could also have been involved in cutting down the trees. The defendants themselves were not present during this inspection, which, in the court's opinion, effectively violated their right to defense.

Additionally, an ecological expert explained that all 51 trees could have been cut down not in one day but over approximately ten days before the repeated inspection. At the same time, the prosecution did not provide proper and admissible evidence that all these trees were cut down by the defendants specifically on January 15.

Why the confirmed cutting of 17 trees was not grounds for criminal liability

The court concluded that the case materials confirmed the cutting of only 17 trees by the defendants. At the same time, the court-calculated amount of environmental damage from this cutting was UAH 16,005.81.

As of the date of the incident, significant damage for the purposes of Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was considered damage exceeding 20 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens. At that time, this threshold was UAH 30,280. Since the damage amount established by the court did not reach this figure, the court concluded the absence of the objective side in the defendants' actions, and therefore the absence of a criminal offense under Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court separately noted that the prosecution's claims about deterioration of the natural composition, protective and other ecological properties of the forest belt and difficulties in its restoration were not supported by any evidence.

Why the court acquitted the father of involving the minor

The father was also charged with involving his minor son in criminal activity.

However, the court noted that the indictment was based precisely on the claim of involving a minor in committing a crime. Since the court concluded the absence of a criminal offense under Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the actions of both defendants, the mandatory element of a criminal offense under part 2 of Article 304 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was also absent. For these reasons, the father was also acquitted of this charge.

What the court ruled

The court acquitted both defendants due to the failure to prove the presence of criminal offenses in their actions.

In addition, the court lifted the seizure imposed on the trailer, chainsaw, and seized wood, returned the car, trailer, and chainsaw to the owner, and ordered the seized tree trunks to be returned to the Petrovyrivka Village Council. The court assigned the procedural costs for the expert examination amounting to UAH 9,948.75 to the state.

The prosecutor's civil claim on behalf of the state to recover UAH 68,652.07 in damages was left without consideration. The court noted that according to part 3 of Article 129 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in case of acquittal due to the absence of a criminal offense in the person's actions, the civil claim within the criminal proceedings is subject to dismissal.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.